Recent Public Service Projects

This is a reverse chronological listing of assorted recent public service
efforts I have been involved in. There is no particular significance
of this web-page except to link to some more descriptive web-pages
on some projects and to mention some less complex concepts.

A New Concept to Completely Stop the War in Iraq

In Oct. 2006, I started trying to get authorities to consider
a very unique concept toward ending the war in Iraq, specifically ending
the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims. I first tried
to let Colin Powell be able to get credit for it, but there was no
response from several letters and dozens of e-mails. I then tried
to let around 40 other American leaders know about it, starting with
the people who were part of the Iraq Study Council, James Baker and
Lee Hamilton and others. No responses from anyone. I then sent
preliminary descriptions to 30 Professors of Political Science
at major Universities. Only one even sent an e-mail back, and that was
to tell me to stop wasting my time! I tried assorted newspapers and
TV networks and TV programs such as Meet The Press, the Charlie Rose
Show, Think Tank, McLaughlin Group, the PBS News Hour, Nightline and
others, with no responses at all except for a couple automated responses.
I tried to contact Tom Friedman in several ways.
I then tried to contact all the news reporters I could in Iraq, such
as John Burns, Sabrina Tavernise, Bobby Ghosh, Richard Engel,
Dexter Filkins, George Packer, and many others. No responses.
I even tried contacting an assortment of Arabic newspapers and
television media such as al Jazeera. No responses.

I am tempted to wonder if no one really cares! Or if no one really
wants to stop that war. Or that there is some immense confidence
that the leaders suddenly know what they are doing! In any case,
after six months of really serious effort to get ANYONE to simply
listen to the concept, with zero interest after hundreds of e-mails
and dozens of letters, I really do not know what else to try. The only
remaining thought I had was to hire someone to translate it into
Arabic and then submit it again to Arabic newspapers and television.

I had really figured that at least a few people would have responded,
if only to tell me that it is a dumb idea! But no one ever even
had enough interest to learn what the actual concept was, to form such
an opinion! Very strange! I will always believe that it was Iraq's
one true chance at avoiding an incredibly bloody massive civil war,
which will certainly involve Muslims around the world.Iraq Violence - A Logical Approach to Finding Peace, an Ummah An outline of the comprehensive conceptIraq Violence - A Logical Approach to Finding Peace, an Ummah - A A slightly different version that does not have any American references in it

Suggestion to Democrats Regarding their Image

In October 2006, it was clear that the Democrats would win a
slim victory in the November Congressional elections, and that
they intended to make a big deal about the Republicans giving themselves
seven pay raises in the previous ten years while never increasing the
Minimum Wage. I had noted that to get elected, even Congressmen
had to spend $10 to $30 million in campaigns, and that virtually
everyone in Congress is wealthy (multi-millionaires). So I wondered
why such a person even NEEDED the $170,000 annual pay! So I spend
around six weeks in mailing about fifty letters and sending maybe
200 e-mails to all the prominent Democrats I knew of. I specifically
thought that Barack Obama would benefit from my concept. The idea
centered on a proposed speech I provided to him and all the others,
including Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and many, many others. I actually have
little doubt that ANY Democratic Senator or Representative who would
have done this could not possibly have ever lost any future election.
And all by huge landslides! Here is
that speech, this specific one was sent to Mr. Obama:

Hi, Mr. Obama,
I believe I have a way where EVERY Democrat could realistically win
landslides next election cycle! There are actually several components to
it, but the most important is a brief speech that you and other Democrats
might give next month in January.
======================================
I realize that you are intending to "roll back" the many self pay raises
that the Republicans pushed through in these past nine years while they
avoided increasing the Minimum Wage. I think there is a far more powerful
thing you can do instead!
LEAVE the pay rates as they are BUT go up to the microphone immediately
after Ms. Pelosi announces the intention to raise the Minimum Wage. This is
the speech to give:
"I and we Democratic Members of Congress have been appalled that the
Republicans have passed so many self pay increases over these recent years,
while neglecting the millions of Americans affected by the Minimum Wage. We
first thought of "rolling back" those pay increases for us, at the same time
we are increasing the Minimum Wage, now that we again have some power to do
such things. But I and we feel that we can do something far better for the
American public.
"We are actually going to leave our pay rates as they are, BUT I am hereby
informing the Paymaster that the actual paychecks that I am to receive will
be based on the Minimum Wage rate.
"I figure that will allow me to better understand the difficulties of the
millions of Americans who have to struggle at or near the Minimum Wage.
Maybe it will help me try to pass better laws for you, if I see the effects
every day.
"It also will leave some of YOUR tax money in the government rather than
paying me a very high wage.
"I believe that some of my Democratic fellows feel the same (turning to give
others a chance to raise their hand in confirmation).
"We felt that the Republicans must really feel they need that $170,000 that
we are now supposed to receive, so we felt that we should not roll their pay
back, in case it represented a hardship on them.
"We Democrats feel that the American public deserves serious changes in how
we do things in Washington, and so we CHOOSE to let the American public keep
most of the paychecks that we could take.
"In the spirit of honesty, there are a few of our Democratic Members who
truly need to receive more than the Minimum Wage, in order to Serve their
Districts properly. They have chosen to reduce their paychecks, but not all
the way down to Minimum Wage."
"There are other actions that we Democrats intend to institute to better
relate to and understand the situation of our constituents. This is fairly
good, but it is just the first.
"I also realize that there are a lot of functions that I will go to where
limousines and jet airplanes might scoot me around. Such things are
necessary with this job. But I believe that my view of America may be
better if I am paid the same as many of you.
"Thank you."
====================================
Explanatory comments: In the modern world, people need to be rather rich to
simply run for Congress. This concept is based on the premise that few
Senators or Congressmen probably actually NEED their paychecks.
Think about the situation that the Republicans would be left in! The entire
American voting public will know that they are receiving huge paychecks, but
every voter will absolutely remember the name of the Democratic Senator or
Congressman who electively chose to "receive the same as they do". No
Republican will want to be interviewed, because they would have no credible
responses! And when Democrats would be interviewed, it would ALWAYS be
brought up by the reporter regarding the Minimum Wage paychecks.
This is the ultimate in "perfect P/R" for Democrats and "horrific P/R" for
Republicans. How could any Democrat lose an election to any Republican, as
in '08? I don't see it as possible. I suspect that every election would be
a landslide. They will all be callable by 8:03 pm Election Night!
Do you realize how millions and millions of Americans will bond with such
Democrats? Possibly forever?
How could any Republican candidate defend himself in any future election?
Debates might be really fun!
Every Democrat who would do this would get massive free publicity from
endless interviews in local papers and local TV. No amount of campaign
money could buy that!
A Democrat would never even have to mention it, but every voter would see
every Republican as greedy, and every Democrat as caring and considerate.
It doesn't get any better than that!
Even better, the Republicans could not really even decline the paychecks,
because they would be associated with them anyway!
I am tempted to wonder how the Republican Party could endure given this
situation!
In an election cycle now, $10 million or $30 million dollars is spent on
each candidacy. It seems a very practical choice to turn in $150,000/year
in pay to accomplish even more!
======================================
In late November, I tried to send these comments to Howard Dean, but I am
not really sure if my e-mail got through to him. It would be ideal if each
Democrat had a chance to think about whether to participate in this, as
secretly as possible, and then the shock value in announcing it to reporters
and the public as indicated above would be overwhelming. Newscasts would
talk about nothing else for weeks!
I hope to quietly permit each Democrat to receive this note, quickly, so
that each could consider this idea. If you like this, you certainly have
far easier access to them than I do!
======================================
======================================
Here is another of these "changes" I propose, a short speech that should be
given pretty soon. I have written it in a form that seems compatible to
your (Barack Obama's) style. It could be modified if someone else was to
give this speech. I would think that the Democratic Party leadership should
be interested, if it has a strong likelihood of enabling Democrats to always
win future elections!
---
Speech: (given standing on the steps of the Capitol)
---
Many Americans have become cynical about what we try to do in this building.
After many bad behaviors by people who work here, they have a right to think
that, based on past performance. They think that we don't care about them
and their needs. We intend to change that!
Our Party recently did pretty well in the election. Some people think that
we therefore "won" this building here.
They are wrong!
YOU own this building!
As our first effort of our new approach, we have instituted something to
directly demonstrate that to you and everyone else! An associate of ours
has determined that there are roughly a million square feet of surface area
of walls, ceilings and floors in there. Very recently, we became a country
of 300 million people.
We therefore see it that every American OWNS about 1/300 square foot of this
building!
We have created a web-site that shows photos of all the walls, ceilings and
floors in the Capitol building. By putting in your nine-digit ZIP code of
your residence, it can show you (approximately) where YOUR portion is!
(Your family's portions are all next to each other.)
Now, this does NOT mean that you have to do any maintenance for your
portion; we have people who take care of that! But we wanted you to fully
realize that we are all answerable to YOU, and that you even own the
building we work in!
Our Democratic Party intends to show you, in many new ways, that we
appreciate the faith you put in us and that we intend to demonstrate that we
earn your trust and faith. You will be able to be the judge of that.
That's all for now. Do you want to go in and see my little part of the
building? (He would have a bright laser pointer in his pocket, and he would
lead reporters in and point [approximately] to the postage-stamp-sized area
on some wall that is identified as his!)
---
This is one of around ten separate concepts that are each intended to bond
American voters to the Democratic Congress members. I almost think that by
the time all these ten would be done, it might be hard for Republicans to
get anyone at all to vote for them!
===============================
Carl Johnson

Is America Safer?

On Sep 7, 2006, I sent this note to several news agencies:

President Bush constantly claims that the world is safer because he got rid
of Saddam. No one seems to have ever challenged that statement. But we now
confront a very likely civil war, which may get other countries involved for
disastrous results. So I think a valid question would be "Would any civil
war have been possible if Saddam was still in power?" He had SUCH a heavy
hand on all factions that I do not believe any could have. In the event
that there was any hint of possibility of "civil disturbance" Saddam simply
exterminated anyone who might be involved. Much like his hero, Stalin, did.
So I think the result is that if Saddam was now still in power, Iraq would
have NO obvious religious strife between Sunnis and Shias or with the Kurds,
AND al Qaeda would have had trouble even getting into the country to cause
any problems. The "war on terrorism" might have been in many countries, but
it seems unlikely that it would have been in Iraq. Therefore, the fact that
Bush got rid of Saddam seems to have made the world and the US LESS safe!

Capture, Killing of Zarqawi

On Apr. 25, 2006, I sent the following e-mail to half a dozen
National News media organizations, including Charlie Rose, ABC Nightline,
Think Tank, Foreign Exchange, Meet the Press:

Hi,
The video of Zarqawi today may have extremely important evidence in it!
For the past two years, I have been trying to get word to the CIA regarding
this regarding the many outdoor videos of bin Laden. I know that you have
contact with people high in the CIA, so I ask that you inform them of the
following.
Around two years ago, our Intelligence demonstrated a "face recognition
system" at the Super Bowl game. Each face scanned was quickly compared to
images of many terrorists and criminals. I don't think the success of that
demonstration was ever presented, but the basic concept is what I see of
value.
I have recommended that UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) be flown at low
altitude up and down every valley of Afghanistan, with (two) side directed
cameras taking an image every second. The result would be "a database of
background images from every location" (with around 150 feet spacing between
images, if the images are taken once per second and the aircraft flown at
100 mph). Now that Zarqawi made a similar video (probably in Iraq), I
recommend the same be done there.
The existing "face recognition program software" should then be able to
identify a "few" possible locations which could be the background of
Zarqawi. Within seconds, our Intelligence could know EXACTLY where Zarqawi
was on last Friday when he allegedly made that video! In any case, such
"evidence" seems extremely valuable to me! I have never gotten any response
in any previous attempts to apprise our Intelligence regarding this concept.
I truly believe they might then capture or kill Zarqawi and/or bin Laden
within days!
I was educated as a Theoretical Physicist at the University of Chicago, so I
like to think that I have some idea regarding this working as described!
So I hope you will try to pass word along for me, and for our country's
security.
Carl Johnson

Just forty-two days later, they found Zarqawi and killed him. The
news reports in the first few hours (as on BBC) described that they had
analyzed the videotape and figured out where he was, and they announced
that that was how they got him. However, just hours later,
they were announcing a very different story, where some local
people had turned him in.

I can understand why they would have done that. They would clearly want
to be able to use the same method in finding Usama bin Laden from
the videotapes that he would regularly make outdoors. Obviously,
they would not want UBL to know that it was a bad idea to do any
more outdoor videotapes. So I understand that that would have wanted
the news media to present a different story.

Still, they had chased Zarqawi for more than four years without finding
him. Then I provide my method and 42 days later, Zarqawi is dead,
and the initial news reports described essentially my exact concept!It seems to me that I deserve the $25 million reward that the US
government offered for information toward the capture or killing of
Zarqawi! Some how, I don't think I will ever be given it!

Katrina, New Orleans

The following note was sent on Aug. 29, 2006, following a year of
similar notes to many newspapers, networks and politicians:

I have found it frustrating that no one seems to have even looked into three
different very serious issues regarding Katrina and New Orleans. Please try
to ask some "decision-maker" to take actions.
(1) Recent news reports keep showing "FEMA trailers", allegedly 75,000 in
use, but none of the pictures seem to show the critically important "tie
downs". All building codes require that such light structures such as
trailers to be securely anchored down, using a number of "earth anchors" to
keep the building from being lifted up into the air and/or disintegrated.
People who are not familiar with living in trailers might feel safe inside a
"FEMA" trailer, but many will certainly die if they stay in those trailers
that are not securely anchored down.
(2) Shortly after Katrina, I begged many in Louisiana to look in the
river/lake next to the section of I-10 that was totally demolished. Just
hours before the hurricane, that highway was filled with stationary vehicles
trying to get away. There seems no doubt that hundreds of vehicles got
washed off the highway as it was destroyed. No one seems to yet even have
looked for those victims.
(3) There are certainly banks that hold the mortgages on those hundred
thousand damaged and abandoned buildings in New Orleans. The mortgagees
have certainly not paid those mortgages for the past 12 months. How could
property owners ever again take possession? Or will the banks be left to
lose a good part of a billion dollars in back payments, and many more
billions in property value? I have not been able to find anyone who is
willing to discuss how owners could ever come back, since ALL properties
have mortgages, and all those are in serious default.
Please ask your guests and any others you are in contact with to find
resolutions for these very important issues. In a year of trying to get
anyone attention about these three things, no one has seemed to even care.

Giving Iran Nuclear Fuel for Reactors is Stupid Beyond Comprehension

On June 19, 2006, I sent this note to a variety of news outlets:

I sometimes deeply worry about the competence of our government! It seems
unlikely that they are going to figure something out so I BEG you to try to
get their attention regarding this.
We KNOW that Iran has supported and financed Islamic terrorists for a long
time. We KNOW that they would provide "nuclear weapons" to such terrorists
if they could make them.
So why in the world would we be preparing to agree to PROVIDE Iran with 4
years stockpile of (reactor grade) nuclear material? Do we not remember
Chernobyl and what long-term havoc reactor grade material can cause?
At whatever point Iran decided to "hand out" one ounce packets of such
reactor grade material to every suicide terrorist bomber, can't people see
the result? Block by block, Israel will become uninhabitable, for example.
A few people would be killed by the suicide bomber, but the resulting spray
of reactor grade U-235 would be as impossible to clean up as Chernobyl is.
"Four years supply" of nuclear fuel for reactors could be divided up into
countless thousands of such packets. Our 100 operating nuclear plants use
around 2,000 metric tons of processed fuel every year. So we might be
providing Iran with maybe 200 metric tons times 4 years or 800 metric tons.
That is around 1,800,000 pounds of fuel. For Iran to hand out 100,000
pounds of it, for 1,600,000 terrorists, would hardly be noticed in the
supply.
Certainly, a few examples would be the start. But as soon as the terrorists
saw that we and Britain and Israel would react with terror and dread, how
long will it take for EVERY terrorist to have their packet of "dirty bomb".
Detonated in a bus station or a train station, that station will never again
be usable.
PLEASE get someone to realize that their (appropriate) fears regarding Iran
getting weapons grade uranium, is possibly even MORE applicable to
reactor-grade, for the reasons above.
Doesn't this seem obvious? Why are we preparing to agree to provide it for
Iran?
By the way, the US does not actually HAVE any nuclear fuel that we could
give away like that! We currently have to import (mostly from Canada and
Australia) virtually all the uranium used in OUR powerplants!

I sent a similar note on May 17, 2006:

You might recall from previous notes that my Degree was in Nuclear Physics
(U of Chicago). But I don't really think that is necessary to understand
something that no one seems to be grasping! Everyone in our government
seems fanatical regarding keeping various countries from creating "weapons
grade" Uranium (which means at least 90% of it being the U-235 isotope).
OK. Just weeks back, there were all the ceremonies regarding Chernobyl.
Every report made clear that there is a "danger zone" that is still for many
square miles in that region, so some reports mentioned that 90,000 have or
will die from that accident.
How come no one seems able to combine those two subjects? Chernobyl had a
"random distribution" of where the contamination went, but all of the
nuclear material was under the 5% of reactor grade Uranium. Our government
seems quite willing to permit other countries to "develop nuclear power",
meaning that they would then have substantial supplies of reactor grade
Uranium available. Given that many terrorists do not expect to survive an
attack, no one seems to see (yet) that if such a terrorist was given a small
amount of finely powdered reactor grade fuel (say in Israel or any American
city) then in addition to killing a few people, that section of a city would
be contaminated for thousands of years.
My point is that the Muslim terrorists do not really need to develop weapons
grade Uranium, to do horrendous "fear and financial" damage. There are
enough countries now having reactor grade Uranium that there is an
incredible danger. But if no one realizes it, it will have even more of a
"terror" effect when that first happens.
I can't say that I see any solutions to protecting against such
possibilities. But the attitude of a somewhat liberal attitude regarding
reactor grade fuels is something I find extremely troubling. If we are
going to have such a fanatical attitude regarding weapons grade, it would
make sense that we pay more attention to reactor grade, too

We Have Been Training and Arming All Three Sides in the Upcoming Iraqi Civil War

I sent this note out on Dec 11, 2006:

In May of 2003, I had told my friend Peter Jennings that we were about to
start providing advanced weapons and training for all three different sides
in a future civil war, Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. I told him that I was sure
that there would certainly be some terrifying massacre, for example in a
military barracks, where one or more Sunnis would just start killing Shia
soldiers in their beds (or the converse). I told Peter that I was
especially worried that they might equally decide to massacre American
soldiers.
Interviews with American soldiers in recent months often include expressions
of how they cannot trust the Iraqi soldiers or police.
I am actually astounded that such a massacre has not yet happened. It
certainly will be a grisly news headline in the near future.
It is not clear that many Iraqi soldiers will survive such an event, as both
sides will immediately get their weapons and virtually everyone figures to
be killed. As this begins, it is clear that American soldiers will feel a
responsibility to attempt to take control, and I fear that large numbers of
American soldiers will then die too.
It is wonderful that this has not yet happened. But why has no one even
tried to avoid it from happening? Barracks have Iraqi soldiers that deeply
hate each other! I specifically told Peter that ANY army that contains both
Sunnis and Shias could never be stable.
The fact that sectarian news is coming out in recent months simply shows
that this is inevitable.
Sadly, even Peter noted that that could be like his beloved Beirut, where
America immediately pulled out after the 200 American soldiers were killed.
When a large number of American soldiers are killed in their own barracks,
America will not tolerate remaining there, and so the worst effect of this
is that it would enable the terrorists to "win".
One of the parts that I find most troubling is that we Americans (taxpayers)
are paying for the advanced weaponry that all sides of the civil war will
use, and they will use skills taught them by American trainers. If they had
remained on their own, their skills would certainly be poorer, and their
weaponry maybe less lethal.

Accuracy of Wikipedia Information

On Mar. 7, 2007, ABC News did a story regarding one individual
re-writing around 15,000 of the Wikipedia articles. They clearly
thought that this was a new situation and one that was unique to
that one person, but I was aware for a couple years that some
people were re-writing articles to present their own ideas rather
than accurate information. So I sent the following to ABC News
on that same day:

Your story on Wikipedia is certainly not even the tip of the iceberg.
I am a Theoretical Physicist. We generally would never rely on some source like
Wikipedia, but it certainly is convenient. Prior to about two years ago, it
seemed to be a reliable tool. Then, roughly two years ago, large numbers of
the subject presentations seemed to start getting amazing new biases in
them! It seemed clear that the authors had intentionally "distorted" many
presentations to seem to support some specific argument that the author
would imply in the presentation. It was as though large numbers of people
suddenly realized that they had a "soapbox" from which to promote whatever
they wanted others to believe.
The results have been extremely sad. Many of these distortions have been
relatively subtle, where casual readers might not realize that some facts
had been switched around or outright changed. But many Wikipedia articles
are now no longer "encyclopedia articles" but "opinion airings".
The point is that the problem is NOT just a single person doing damage.
There are clearly many thousands of people now feeling that they can say
anything they have ever wanted to say!

The Economy and GM

On Apr 4, 2006, Think Tank had a program on the economy and the
troubled carmakers GM and Ford. I sent the following note:

You have had some programs regarding aspects of the economic crises, but
your various guests seem to think that any serious problems are well in the
future. I think it is important to point out one example of just how
serious the problems already are!
GM recently announced that they lost $10.6 billion in 2005. People seem to
consider it "just a number". However, there is a way to look at it that is
VERY frightening! In 2005, GM collectively produced roughly 5 million
vehicles. They don't have significant other businesses, so it seems
appropriate to allocate the losses to those vehicles. Simple division shows
that GM lost slightly over $2,000 on EVERY vehicle it made in 2005. Think
about that! They have "efficiency experts" who find ways of saving a penny
on each vehicle through cost-cutting measures. IF the losses were such that
$50 was lost on each vehicle, sure, they might have some way of generating a
solution. But at $2,000 on each vehicle, it is an entirely impossible task!
Particularly since Japanese vehicles tend to cost less and be of higher
quality, so GM cannot even rely on standard reasons for purchasers. Worse,
within a year or two, China intends to start marketing a far lower priced
line of vehicles, obviously in very large volume.
I chose this as an "ideal" example because the numbers are so easily
crunched. For the airlines, similar tremendous losses occur for every
passenger, and they are similarly impossible to absorb or resolve, but their
bookkeeping is more complex and harder to quantify and allocate.
America has already exported electronics, clothing, steel and many other
industries. These clear facts are flashing red lights that the remaining
anchors of American industry are also on the verge of disappearing.
"Service economy" will soon be a nearly universal situation, where Americans
fulfill "services" for each other while actually buying everything from
foreign sources. This is a coming disaster on the scale that is Biblical!
(Something a Pastor rarely says!)

To indicate that my interest is purely scientific and logical,
it seems necessary to include yet another subject here.

The President's Safety

In the First Term of W, he virtually never left the United States
and never even went anywhere where he might be in the slightest
physical danger. It was a very obvious pattern. I interpret this
as meaning that W's existence was centrally critical to the
Republicans, and specifically Vice President Cheney, being re-elected
in November 2004. It seemed to me that many things totally changed
immediately after that. I suppose it would be a Conspiracy Theorist
thought, but it really seemed to me that Bush had rather suddenly
no longer had the importance that he clearly earlier had! I did not
have any actual evidence, except for these matters, but I had mentioned to
my friend Peter Jennings several times about the fact that MANY foreign trips
were now scheduled for Bush. And some of those trips were amazingly
unsafe for him. It seemed to me that IF Bush would have been assassinated
somewhere, then Cheney would suddenly have had two wonderful new
benefits! One would be that he would become President of the United
States! The other is that the American people would certainly
support virtually anything that Cheney decided to do, regarding
personal revenge, much like they had done with Saddam Hussein a couple
years earlier in Iraq.

I sent this note on Mar. 2, 2006, regarding some amazingly unsafe trips
that President Bush was just on. A year before, there had been a similar
bizarre situation, where after a conversation with my friend Peter Jennings
of ABC News, he even made a phone call to the White House to ask about
the concern. It was impressive that immediately after Peter's call,
the very unsafe foreign trips were ended! I am tempted to think that
once Cheney had realized that Peter had realized that Bush was now
regularly put into situations of incredible danger, it would have looked
too suspicious if Peter might then mention that fact on the Nightly News!
But around a year later, such trips had started again, when I sent this
note. I have always wondered if the fact that Peter suddenly became very
ill with lung cancer and died, might have implied that the only
likely public voice that could note the statistical pattern, might have
suggested that dangerous trips might again be planned for Bush.

I realize that this is both impossible for me to ever prove, and
also saying that the Vice President was not actually trying to
murder the President, but apparently intentionally enabling a
LOT of situations where it might have happened. So I recognize that
the credibility of this idea is extremely weak. The ONLY actual
evidence is that Bush went on NO foreign trips that had the slightest
chance of being dangerous prior to Nov 2005, but then a LOT of amazingly
dangerous trips after being re-Elected.

It has clearly not ended, as in March 2007, President
Bush made another very dangerous trip. It seemed beyond comprehension!
Bush first made a scheduled trip to South America for some official
meeting. Fine. But then on the way home, Air Force One made an
UNSCHEDULED LANDING in Central America (where the Presidential Security
Staff had no way of checking anyone out or even arranging any safety
for him.) This time, Bush even tried to impress working men by helping
load produce into trucks, and even getting into a spontaneous soccer game.
The Security people had NO POSSIBLE WAY of knowing if any of those
people were dangerous to him, or even whether they had guns in their
pockets, because it was all totally unscheduled and spontaneous, and
in a small country where many very dangerous people lived!
Bush would never DARE do either such thing in the United States,
because of how dangerous it would be. And THAT would be in his
own country where his Security People would have thoroughly checked
out every single person who might have been able to get near him.
But Bush did such things in Guatemala and Mexico, where millions of
people truly hate him, and where the people who were around him
were absolutely unknown to his Security Staff???

(My note of March 2, 2006)

Hopefully, this will be the silliest note you will ever receive. However, I
fear it might not be. A year ago, I had mention these things to my friend
Peter Jennings and we had a brief discussion about it. He also feared that
I might be right.

I was educated as a Theoretical Physicist at the University of Chicago, so Peter
liked that I always brought a rigidly logical approach to any subject.

I had noted these facts:

(1) After 9/11/01, President Bush rarely was around any people who were not
clearly friendly to his views, an extremely noticeable and statistically
valid situation. His personal safety was certainly paramount, and he
virtually never left the United States, except in massively secured
environments.

(2) Almost immediately after his re-election in 2004, there seemed to be a
statistically valid drastic change to that situation. I realize that there
were political reasons, but the specific incidents seemed amazingly
insecure! A trip to South America is what inspired my note to Peter.
President Bush was probably reasonably safe at the Conference he attended,
even though it was very obvious that there were many people nearby who would
not have hesitated to kill him. But on the way back from that Conference,
the President made a previously unscheduled side trip, to a rather dangerous
place. I suspect the Secret Service was appalled.

(3) During 2005, the President made a statistically surprising number of
trips out of the US. Usually, security measures were probably as good as
they could be, but occasionally, there were certainly situations where some
angry person could have been in a crowd near enough to him to try to kill
him. There was even the man with the hand-grenade that did not explode
while Bush was on a Podium.

(4) This current trip to India seems to be an even more prominent example.
India itself is probably reasonably secure, but traveling to Pakistan seemed
to be "challenging" UBL to try to have him killed! And making an
unscheduled side trip to Afghanistan, where security issues could not
possibly have been fully implemented, seems pure insanity!

(5) I had told Peter (early 2005) that it would be interesting to watch
whether President Bush ever again showed up in potentially dangerous places.
Well, it seems to happen far too often, I think.

Observation: In the early years of his Presidency, Bush was definitely a
strong asset to the Neo-Cons and the Republican Party. But after bad things
in Iraq, Katrina, and multiple scandals, his personal popularity has
plummeted to where he is now a millstone around the neck of Neo-Cons and
Republicans. It seems like every week new examples of utter incompetence
and/or outright lying to the American people arise.

Given all this, WHAT future would be "the best" for the Neo-Cons and the
Republicans? Well, a truly frightening possibility is that a President, who
always talked about terrorism, might be martyred by a terrorist, and who
would then have the highest of any possible image to the American public.
No one would then ever criticize an assassinated President, and his
"legacy" would be as he dreams it would be.

With any OTHER contingency, Bush would be directly blamed for the coming
civil war and destruction of Iraq, for bankrupting the US government and
economy, for Katrina issues, and for many scandals. The "negatives"
are now endless, and will forever be endless. Already, while still in the
Presidency, experts (like Reeves) are already comparing W with President
Buchanan as being the worst President America has ever had! As Iraq
disintegrates, and therefore affects oil production and distribution (from
primarily Muslim countries), coming months figure to become even darker, for
America and Americans.

It is definitely a very "sick" thought that any "close advisor" in or near
the White House might see some bizarre way to justify lax security around
Bush, but the above concepts could engender such horrendous thoughts in some
individual who might be more concerned about Bush's "legacy" than his "long
life".

I just don't want to see even a glimmer of that happen! I don't
respect much about W, but I wish him a long and healthy life.

On an obscurely related subject, I note that NO ONE seems to have even
mentioned the "pattern of assassinations" (or death while in Office) during
the Tenure of W. When Reagan became President, it was a prominent subject
of discussion, and then when he was shot, people seemed to think it
"fulfilled the pattern" even though he survived. Isn't it odd that no one
seems to even broach the subject regarding W? Maybe it's because, after
9/11/01, it was recognized that many people would want to, and the news
media have shown restraint? Even that seems rather surprising!

---
Again, I truly hope that these are simply foolish thoughts and that nothing
will occur that resembles them. However, I would ask that, since YOU have
communications with people in the White House, you simply mention that you
received a "flaky" note and asked for any response. I don't really want
anyone to respond to you, but I would only want word to pass through those
Halls that they should really make sure the President is EXTREMELY secure
for the next 3 years! Because otherwise, suspicion might arise. I look
forward to being proven totally wrong on this!

Please note that I am NOT suggesting that anyone would do anything overt in
these matters. It is more of a "security sloppiness" which might enable an
assassination, which would then turn out to be extremely beneficial in many
ways. No one would "intentionally" endanger the President.

Spying on Americans

On Jan. 2, 2006, I sent the following note, in response to the
news that the American government had decided that it was free
to spy on Americans, under the excuse of trying to track down
terrorists. But it was clear that since the government was not
even admitting there was such a program, and certainly was not
admitting how large it was, there was no way of knowing whether
the efforts were focused on a handful of likely terrorists or
whether it was more broad in nature. (More recent disclosures
have shown that it was immensely broad in nature, not only
involving communications of ANY American to anyone outside the
country but very likely, EVERY conversation and e-mail even
between Americans. It has later been learned that AT&T had
even specifically set up an entire floor of a building to
handle all this activity, and that automated equipment has
likely been monitoring ALL phone calls and e-mails from
every American to every other person for specific keywords!
If a message contained enough of those keywords, then a more
focused attention was put on that person as a potential terrorist!)

I have the impression that everyone is overlooking one "detail"! How
extensive an operation has this been?
IF the total number of intercepted phone calls and e-mails during the past
three years has been in the "tens" or "hundreds", maybe we Americans could
tolerate that.
But the day when the story first broke, and the White House seemed rather
open to comments, they presented descriptions where countless thousands of
phone calls and e-mails were "examined", such that "key words" could be
discovered. If THIS is the case, where, in three years, many millions of
phone calls and e-mails have been "examined" for such content, then it is
totally outrageous.
Without knowing whether this program has been small or large, I don't see
how anyone could express any intelligent observations or opinions.

Here is another note I sent on Feb 12, 2006, on the same subject:

For two months, you and your guests (and everyone else) has discussed the
"domestic surveillance" program, but there is a central fact that everyone
seems unaware of. As a Theoretical Physicist, in the late 1990s, I had some
conversations with acquaintances who were then involved in developing the
technology now being used. It was and is VERY different than the media is
now discussing!
Even then, ten years ago, the technology pretty much existed to "computer
monitor" EVERY phone call made in America. Voice recognition was the only
significant hurdle at that time, and automated language translation was a
lesser problem. The intention then under consideration was to monitor EVERY
person-to-person communication "which used public means of communication"
(which was to exclude private person-to-person verbal conversations, which
were known then to be illegal.) The plan was to have computer software
MONITOR every single communication, but only generate a notification to a
human when certain "keywords" were identified. It was my understanding that
one or two references to such keywords would not trigger such an alert,
because it was found that far too many millions of conversations would then
have to be human analyzed. I do not know what number of references were
required to initiate human intervention, or what words were considered
keywords. But they clearly intended to set it up so that a manageable
number of phone conversations would actually be listened to by humans. NOT
because of any legal rules, but because of the practical issues of not
having enough people to do the listening.
What this means is that it is nearly certain that, when YOU call your wife
to get a grocery list, a computer automatically monitored that conversation.
The fact that you two probably did not say enough keywords, it is probable
that no human ever heard the grocery list. But it was my understanding that
there was not expected to be ANY exemptions from such monitoring. Once 9/11
occurred, it seems an absolute certainty that this is fully active.
The point is that it is NOT true that "only a few hundred communications to
and from al Qaeda" have been monitored, but EVERY conversation between every
American and every other person was similarly monitored. The reasoning was
that, ahead of time, no one could know if any conversation involved
dangerous people, so a justification was made that all conversations were to
be monitored.
Later, the existence of e-mail made such monitoring far simpler, since
anyone can monitor unsecure e-mail communications. Also, the widespread use
of cel-phones now makes intercepting such communications far easier.
It turns out that NONE of that was really even necessary! ALL "overseas
communications" now use a limited number of satellites to transfer the
signals. The government certainly monitors all signals sent through all
those communication satellites (US and other), which means they have long
had easy access to all overseas communications WITHOUT having to be
intercepting landline phone calls or cel-tower signals or intra-America
communications.
The ultimate point of this is that there is great deception now being
presented by the Administration, wherein they imply that "only" a very small
number of communications to and from terrorists are monitored. Their
initian and basic reasoning is that ALL communications, including yours and
mine, every one, MUST be monitored, because of the remote possibility that
some terrorist evidence might be obtained. It is an over-stepping of
authority that is beyond imagination, and yet they are "spinning" so well
that people believe it is a good thing! It is a frightening elimination of
"democracy and freedom" for Americans, solely because one man, the
President, decides that he wants to eavesdrop.

And here is another note I sent on Dec. 17, 2005, to note that
the Congressmen's offices are almost certain to have thousands or
millions of their phone calls and e-mails monitored by that
spying by the government:

Regarding the newly disclosed phone and e-mail monitoring, apparently
primarily on overseas calls and messages: As I understand it, each
Congressman and Senator now has a staff of around 400, and there are 535
such Offices, or over 20,000 individuals. If ANY offices are likely to be
making "overseas calls and messages", I would think it would be those
Offices. In three or four years, conceivably a million calls and messages
from and to Congressmen and Senators could be involved.
Question: What chance is there that SOME OF THE CONGRESSMEN'S AND SENATORS'
overseas correspondence has been monitored by Bush and the NSA?
Answer: Scientifically, it is an absolute certainty!
Carl Johnson
(trained as a Theoretical Physicist, so I am liable to be "watched" as well!)

Providing Safe Drinking Water to Remote People in Third World Countries

In Dec. 2005, I uploaded some web-pages regarding encouraging individual
American families to do a Family-Project (for under $100 total cost)
where they would make a new type of pump I invented and then ship it
directly to some remote village that needed it. In the process of this
effort, I contacted UNICEF , which promotes itself as an organization
which is centered on getting safe drinking water to such people, for
one single purpose, to learn where there were specific villages with
such needs, such that I could provide that shipping/destination
information to the families that might make these pumps.

The responses have been surprising and disappointing. It actually
appeared that some human actually looked at my note, although it is
clear that they didn't actually read it! I suppose that I should
be pleased that someone in such a giant operation even saw cause
to write a six-word note to someone else about it! But clearly,
they have the exclusive mind-set that ONLY MONEY is to be considered
or discussed, and they were clearly assuming that I wanted some of
their money. NO I DIDN'T! I simply wanted addresses to enable
families to send pumps to!

By the way, now 16 months later, still no one has bothered to do
the follow-up contact that was promised!

Thank you for your query to UNICEF. Your message, a copy of which is
included in this email below, has been forwarded to the appropriate office,
and you will be contacted soon.
Best regards,
Web Operations Manager
supportunicef.org
UNICEF PSD, New York
Re: Other
Hi, Allison,
Sounds like a PSD proposal to me?
Happy Holidays!
Drew
___________________________________
For every child
Health, Education, Equality, Protection
ADVANCE HUMANITY
A public user of the UNICEF website has made an inquiry or comment that
relates to your area. Please review their e-mail below and respond directly
to the user as soon as possible.
Country: United States of America
Message:
We have invented two new, inexpensive devices, one to pump water hundreds
or thousands of vertical feet WITHOUT any electric motors, and the other to
desalinate seawater. Our plans are to have American children be in contact
with Third World children, in villages that may or may not need safe
drinking water. In the case that they did, then kid to kid, they would
discuss needs. At some point the American kids would ask their parents to
put up around $100 for the local materials they would need to have a
"family project" to make and then send either a pump or a desal to such a
village. All we would need from UNICEF would be mail or e-mail contacts in
such needy villages, as we believe we can arrange for individual families
to take care of the rest. See New Pump for
more details. All we need is to learn exactly where needs might be.

In waiting for the following two years for ANY response from anyone
in UNICEF, no one ever bothered to do the follow-up contact that was
promised! I had tried to GIVE THEM two wonderfully useful and
valuable technologies, but they made clear that they were ONLY interested
in me sending MONEY to UNICEF!

Some months later, we heard from a small company that manufactures
desalinization equipment, which generously TRIED to provide some free
equipment to the people of Indonesia after the devastating Tsunami they had (in December 2004).
That company contacted UNICEF with a similar purpose to ours, of wanting
to learn where there were specific needs so they could directly ship additional
equipment, something on the scale of $20,000 worth. That company was
shocked at the response of UNICEF, which told them NOT to send any
equipment! They were told to instead SELL the equipment and just send
UNICEF the money instead! As we noted in our (single) interaction
with UNICEF, they seem to not even care about the actual people or
the actual needs and ONLY think in terms of the money and cash
flow for their enormous bureaucracy instead!

There is NO possible way that I will ever donate to UNICEF again!
I used to believe their TV ads where they seem to care so much, but
that is clearly not the case. They have become such a huge bureaucracy
that the only thing that they now think about is their own job
security and prosperity. It is now no wonder to me why they budget
many millions of dollars to have very effective TV ads created
and then aired, because it gets people like you and me to donate
hundreds of millions of dollars to support their bureaucracy.

Clearly, they actually help a few kids here and there, especially
when they can have TV cameras there showing what a wonderful job
they are doing for future TV ads. The early UNICEF actually CARED
about needy people, but that no longer seems to be the case. It
is immensely sad.

Energy Conservation

I sent the following to Think Tank on Jan. 24, 2005, well before
most people seemed to even think there WAS any actual energy crisis
or that virtually anyone accepted that Global Warming was a valid
concern. They had done a program where their experts were discussing
the hoped-for prospect of reducing gas and oil consumption by ONE
percent! I felt that they needed to know that far greater
improvements were possible and not that hard to accomplish.

I am a Theoretical Physicist and I have spent much of the past 30 years exploring
energy conservation concepts. There are many more that are available,
but they tend to not provide huge profits for anyone so they don't get
much press.
For four years, I have given away the technology for "free air
conditioning" which uses the fact that deep soil (in most climates) is
permanently cool enough (like caves) to provide plenty of cooling for a
house or other building. A presentation is at
http://mb-soft.com/solar/saving.html

A related concept, mentioned in that presentation, is in creating a full
"sub-basement" underneath the footprint of a house. That 8' tall
chamber is surrounded by three layers of 2" thick blue styrofoam, for
R-30 insulation. The chamber is then filled back in with moist soil.
If warmed to just 120F, there is enough heat to entirely heat the whole
house for more than half a winter! If warmed to around 135F, for the
entire winter, in climates like Chicago or New York or DC. Note that
this involves ZERO oil or gas usage and zero pollution or global
warming, if the previous summer's heat is used to warm the storage
contents. Heating it to only 120F or 135F is not very difficult and
very primitive solar collection can be used.
Your program was discussing trying to reduce oil and gas consumption by
1%! This reduces it by 100%!
There are several other energy related concepts like this which are
available, to make electricity, for example, using no fossil fuels.
Carl Johnson
Physics, '67, University of Chicago

Possibly Something Fishy in the 2004 Presidential Election!

I sent the following note to an individual on Jan 12, 2006, which is
similar to a number of earlier notes, including a couple to Peter
Jennings. Peter laughed and thought that I was acting like a
"conspiracy theorist" but I made clear that was not the case,
I was merely a Theoretical Physicist that looks for logic in all situations.

Since you seem intrigued by "enemy government" concepts, maybe I will share
some "thoughts" of mine, on a rather different subject.
(1) For quite a few years, I have occasionally entertained myself with
Windows' Solitaire game. Early on, I noticed what I believe to be "a
pattern", where the very first game you play seems to be FAR easier to
completely win (using Vegas scoring, 3 cards, keeping score) than any
following game, which generally seem to have "reasonable" success/failure
results. Statistically, I feel confident that this could be very easily and
fully documented. I have never heard Microsoft mention such a "bias", but I
could see how programmers might have added that "starting success" advantage
to induce people to want to keep playing. If people simply lose the first
ten times they play, they have little further interest. But if they "win
big" early on, there is an incentive to play more. It really makes sense to
me.
Since those programmers created the program around 10 years ago, I wonder if
it is even possible to obtain a de-compiled version of it, or ask the
original programmers about this apparent situation.
POINT: Countless millions of people have played Windows Solitaire, and
never even suspected that it (probably) contains such a starting bias.
(2) Early in 2004, the President of Diebold gave around a million dollars to
W Bush's re-election campaign. In a press conference, he "guaranteed" Ohio
for Bush.
(3) Diebold happens to manufacture the new voting machines used in Ohio,
Florida and in other States. There was a lot of publicity regarding the
fact that the machines provided NO "paper receipt" for the voter, NO "paper
trail" of any sort, to be able to later confirm that the machine generated
the correct totals.
(4) Within hours after the Election, there were a number of claims that,
occasionally Democratic voters believed that their vote was recorded as
Republican, or even that occasionally, it reduced the Democratic total! (I
am not sure how voters could have gotten any data to believe such things,
but they were certainly in the news.
(5) Ohio, the State where Diebold's factory happens to be, turned out to be
the single State that decided the Presidential Election, using all Diebold
machines, none of which could be later checked for accurate totals.
My thoughts: NOT any "conspiracy" but if Diebold and maybe one or two
intimate programmers, had added into the compiled programming of the voting
machines, something like what I believe exists in Solitaire, no one would
ever have any way of confirming or denying anything!
At the time, I thought there was a single possibility to pursue. Peter
Jennings happened to be a pretty good friend of mine, and I had described
this to him. He laughed and joked that I was becoming a "conspiracy
theorist"! He knew that I have always been a very careful Physicist, and
not prone to "conspiracy theories" or anything like that. I had asked him
to have ABC News try to obtain a few voting machines, in the days AFTER the
election, and then have staffers pretend to cast votes, enough thousands to
see if there were any scientifically valid statistical variations. I hoped
that the ABC staffers might carefully "cast" 500 Kerry votes and 500 Bush
votes, to make sure that the totals were exactly always 500, 500. If they
were consistently even 498, 502, THAT would have swung the Ohio Election
winner!
Peter didn't realize that I was really serious, and I do not think he ever
had ABC News try to obtain any of those machines. They have probably been
given new software by now, and so no one will or could ever know about this.
But when the President of the company that manufactured the voting machines
GUARANTEED that Bush would win, along with giving a million dollars, I sort
of wonder if Diebold might have been willing to "bend some ethical rules" to
achieve his end!
I don't know if this interests you, and I certainly do not think there is
any way to (now) document anything, specifically because there were NO
"paper trails", a unique situation in National Elections! I admit that I
wondered if Diebold had become arrogant enough to think that he "couldn't
get caught" and might have sent identically programmed voting machines to
Iraq for their elections. But I would find it hard to believe that he could
be that stupid!
I don't really see what could (now) be done regarding this, but I find the
"coincidences" to be "extremely unlikely" without some dark actions being
involved.

Energy from the Earth's Rotation

Around 1990, I realized that there was immense energy available in the
rotational energy of the Earth spinning, and I did extensive research
in that area. I eventually decided to create a web-page on my
efforts in 2002. I received the following introductory note on
Feb. 20, 2006. It turns out that the Soviet Union had done massive
research on this concept beginning around 1970 (far before me!).

When they found my web-page, they realized that I had some insights
that might benefit their continuing research, now in the Ukraine.
Their approach have always been along the same line, and they
apparently build hundreds of devices that attempted to use this
concept but all of them were failures! By their descriptions, they
always used massive gear-trains to speed up the effect of the
very slow rotation of the earth. They apparently felt, and apparently
still feel, that they can overcome all the frictional losses in
gearing up rotation by factors of 100,000 to one! But I doubt it!
My approaches (and attempts at prototypes) have always been
based on an entirely different approach, where the speeds of rotation
involved are actually rather slow, never over even 100 rpm!

The Ukrainian research group was VERY interested in us working together
on advancing this concept. However, they were reminded that their
government had a requirement that they were ONLY allowed to work
with Institutes and Universities! They were surprised that I am
an independent researcher. They BEGGED me to lie about being
associated with some University so that they could continue to
work with me! But it is outside the range of things I would do to
outright lie just to enable such efforts, it would be totally
deception! So they went away and have never returned!

Hello.
My name is Igor Tkachenko. I'm from Ukraine.
I've read some articles on your web site (e.g.
powerplt.html) and very interested in discussing
Electric Power Plants topic with the Author.
Would you please doing me a favour and give some detailed contact
information (address or E-Mail) of Mr. C. Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Univ of
Chicago?
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Igor Tkachenko

Before that conversation ended, I wound up discussing with other people
an invention I came up with (which is NOT described in any web-page!)
regarding producing massive amounts of electricity from very low-head
flood control dams. So I sent the following note on Feb. 26, 2006.
No one has previously felt that such dams are high enough to
provide usable amounts of electricity. I had brought it up because
Russia had just shut down the entire supply of energy to the Ukraine
over a political dispute, and I thought that their country could
use a way to become nearly completely energy-independent.

I was educated at the University of Chicago, and received my degree in
Physics there. I later attended Graduate School at Purdue University, but
declined their Degree because I respected the University of Chicago far
more.
On completing College, I was dismayed to learn that virtually all potential
employment in Physics at that time was either directly or indirectly related
to weapons development, which I would not participate in. My life therefore
took a turn toward "independent research" (while also inventing a highly
efficient woodburning stove and operating a company to manufacture and sell
many of them). That manufacturing experience has provided me with great
amounts of "practical experience" which most Physicists seem to lack,
regarding "actual devices" and "real problems to solve". The combination
has been quite useful to me, in being able to "invent" a concept, do the
Math and Physics to confirm it and then do the Engineering and construction
to design and build it.
All of the "projects" I have ever found really important have involved
"attempting to do good" somehow, and that eventually led me to study for the
Ministry (1992-1996) and to become a Christian Pastor, which is my
"official" occupational position now.
--
Regarding what we might do, we have only communicated in the broadest of
generalities so far, and there seem an extremely wide range of potential
areas of mutual effort. I am obviously intrigued by whatever research has
been explored regarding gyroscopes.
Regarding the hydroelectric device, because I see the construction time to
be very brief, I see no reason that any commitment would need to be
contemplated for more than one such device initially. Assuming you were
pleased with its performance, many more could be discussed. Their
construction and operation would not then be significantly delayed. I
mention this because the benefits appear to be rather soon, where gyroscope
research may not result in actual benefits for some extended time.
I hope this information is sufficient for a starting point.

In June 2001, three months BEFORE 9/11/01, I saw an interview
with President Bush where he mentioned that "Saddam tried to kill
my daddy!" The expression on his face was frightening, and I mentioned
right then to several friends that "We're going to invade Iraq,
just to revenge that single incident!" My friends laughed and
said that I was being ridiculous, that we would NEVER invade any other
country without cause and that we would certainly not do it for such
a personal purpose. I then added that Bush's personal vengeance
was bound to cost many lives and billions of dollars.

By 9/13/01, two days after the World Trade Towers attacks, it was
obvious to me that no one was going to want to ride on airliners, if
they thought there was ANY chance of that aircraft being used as
a weapon as on 9/11/01. It occurred to me that every business computer
has the capability of "password protection" where the screen
and keyboard can instantly be blanked so no one else could use the
computer or access the information. That is just a simple half dozen
lines of computer code, and it is already in hundreds of millions of
computers. So why not make a simple modification to an airliner's
controls and screens to do the same? Maybe a "pilot weight switch"
could blank the controls in case he didn't have time to press a
button to do it. The concept was to quickly show the flying public
that no one other than the pilot could fly that aircraft, and so
it could never be used as on 9/11/01. There is a way of
Making Airliners Safer with Password-Protected Instruments
on this. As of yet,
no airline and no aircraft manufacturer has done this very simple
modification. Instead, they are spending many millions to install
massive doors and to have non-undercover air marshals with guns
on some flights. Seems like a foolish choice to me!

In those first weeks after 9/11/01, it quickly seemed obvious
that Bush and his friends were going to use 9/11/01 as an excuse
to invade Iraq. They had to make a first move in Afghanistan,
but were clearly quickly changing their focus to Iraq, or specifically
Saddam. It occurred to me that since we really only had such
a small goal, of getting rid of a single person, the $40 billion
that the Bush administration would not admit to, seemed like an
enormous cost for that "benefit". I noted that there
were 25 million Iraqis, in around 4 million families, and so
that original estimate of $40 billion represented $10,000 for
every single Iraqi family. Since the annual Iraqi family income
was around $2000, it seemed to me that if we (the American government)
simply made an offer of FIVE YEARS INCOME for every Iraqi family
(totally $40 billion) if any one of them happened to kill Saddam,
then no war would be necessary, no American soldiers would be killed,
and the Iraqi people would LOVE America, for giving all of them all
that money! I could not get anyone to be interested in that approach.

In the Fall of 2001, there were a number of letters mailed with
Anthrax powder in them. When it was clear that no one could locate
the source, a possibility occurred to me. In some way, the mailer
had to seal the envelope. If he licked it, then DNA from his saliva
would be in the glue that dried to seal the envelope. If he did NOT lick
it (probably more likely because of the danger of the powder), then
he needed to use a sponge or some other method to wet the glue.
For a few seconds, that wet glue was exposed to the air in the room he was
in. It is well established that in the air around every person
(including you right now!) there are microscopic scalp and skin
particles suspended in the air. Each of those tiny particles contains
your DNA. I thought that during those few seconds that the glue was
wet, maybe one or more such scalp or skin particles had fallen from
the air and got stuck in the glue. In either case, an extremely
microscopic analysis of the glue might then provide some DNA of the
person who sent the letters. I mentioned this to Peter Jennings,
and he thought it was an interesting thought. In his position,
he was able to immediately call the FBI to ask if they had done such testing.
They had not! But during the next few hours, they apparently did,
but did not find any scalp or skin cells embedded in the glue. I believe
them, of course, but it seems amazing. In just a few HOURS after
Peter Jennings had called them, they allegedly had sub-microscopically
examined every square millimeter of ever envelope involved, and then
concluded that there were no particles in any of it, where they then
called Peter back to tell that to him! I guess I am more familiar with
scientific procedures than Peter was, and I knew that WEEKS of careful
research would certainly have been necessary to make such a conclusion!
Because there are so many such microscopic particles constantly in the
air around each of us. I felt absolutely certain that there should
have been many thousands of possible cells trapped in that envelope glue,
all too small to see with the naked eye, but each of which would have
contained the DNA of the person who happened to be nearby.

It certainly seems to me that the FBI chose to do a very amateurish
and brief attempt to look at the glue on those envelopes. It certainly
seemed to me that they seemed to NOT want to actually find the
guilty person! (It later turned out that the FBI apparently CHOSE a
designated target, where they apparently did not even want to find
any evidence which might have contradicted what they had already
decided. Later, still, it was discovered that the FBI had aggressively
harassed their chosen target, but that they eventually found that he
could NOT have been guilty! Did that discourage the FBI? Not at all!
They simply chose a DIFFERENT man to harass, who apparently was also
absolutely innocent of what they constantly accused him of having done.

It is my guess that the envelopes probably STILL EXIST somewhere in FBI
archives. So, IF an actual CAREFUL and SCIENTIFIC examination is
ever done to those envelopes, we might still be able to learn WHO
the guilty person was late in 2001.

This presentation was first placed on the Internet in December 2004.

This page - - - - is at This subject presentation was last updated on - -